The Fine Arts definitely improve you as a human being. I believe Kasic hits the nail on the head when he says it’s a matter of obtaining new perspectives, which I would consider the most important facet of self-improvement in general. Engaging with media, ideally very polished, cerebral media is one of the two best ways to gain these perspectives. The other, of course, being first-hand experience of the topic in question.

As we all know, though, experience isn’t always possible. For example, my outlook on euthanasia, (which to this day I’m lucky enough to have no first-hand experience with) was shaped largely by reading One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in high school. This piece of literature single-handedly solidified my belief that people in the direst of circumstances should be allowed the right to die.

In this case, I’d say Fine Art improved both my ethics and my knowledge of the world. I believe that the latter is impossible to avoid when engaging with virtually any medium, high or low, while the former varies based on content, the type of person you are, and your ability to separate, (or integrate) reality and the piece in question.

That said, I have to go off an a tangent here and say I’ve always been uncomfortable with the term “Fine Art”. To me, that term suggests that “this is the stuff that will REALLY change your worldview and enrich your life!”, which just doesn’t compute with me since I’ve read “regular” novels that are core to my being to this day, and literature that I just couldn’t appreciate or learn a great deal from. I hesitate to provide an example here, but The Great Gatsby is an example of literature that just didn’t do anything for me. I get that it’s supposed to be a commentary on the carelessness and excesses of the rich in the 1920’s, but to me it just wasn’t particularly enriching.

I’m going to go ahead and break this post off now for fear of going on forever, and end with posing a few questions to you Janton, if I may, just to elucidate for myself what is kosher for this thread as far as Fine Art is concerned. Does film qualify by your standards? Is electronic music capable of achieving the same level of artistry as classical? Can video games apply? Anime?

I don’t mean to put you on the spot or derail the thread; I pose the same questions to anyone who cares to answer. I just feel it’s important to test the waters of public, (and TC’s) opinion where Fine Art is concerned, since the definition seems kind of fluid. When you ask if you’re missing anything in the OP, I must admit that I have a hard time providing a definitive answer.

I’m especially motivated to question this type of thing because of a game I recently got, The Stanley Parable. I simply don’t know what to make of it… In the context of video games, it’s self-referential in the manner I’d expect from a really good, albeit tongue-in-cheek, piece of literature. “Does it constitute Fine Art?” is actually a question I asked myself while playing it, albeit in slightly different words.

TC, you said in your first post that you “believe” everything stated within it… And people hold beliefs for a reason. As you say, there is not yet a scientific consensus on what exactly constitutes the root of homosexual behaviour – yet you come out and say that you think it’s genetic. Now, why is that?

A genetic explanation isn’t any more “scientific” than a hormonal one. Research exists in support of both schools of thought. Objectively there’s no reason to subscribe to one over the other, so it must be your own subjective views that make the difference.

Here’s what I think.

I think you like to think of homosexuality as genetic because, based on the arguments you present about it being contrary to the “natural” human instinct of reproduction, you want a sciency-sounding way of making homosexuality sound like a negative thing. Easy enough to do from a genetic standpoint, given that buzzwords like “maladaptive mutation” are common in the discipline, and act as a well-known precedent for the type of thing you’re trying to paint homosexuality as by suggesting that it undermines survival instincts.

I think the second reason for your adherence to these beliefs is that you see genetic engineering as a kind of “out” – paired with your explanation of why homosexuality is maladaptive, you seem very much to be implying that, through genetic alteration, we can eventually remove this troublesome obstacle to fully indulging our survival instincts, thus putting us back on the “proper” evolutionary path once and for all.

He does not dislike gay people or think that they are inferior, he just fears them for some reason. But maybe it would be a good idea to think about what that reason is.

True phobias are often, by their very nature, irrational. Like anthophobia, the fear of flowers. Or chromophobia, the fear of bright colours.

Looking up the Wikipedia article on phobias right now, it appears that specific social group-related fears such as islamophobia, homophobia, and (my favourite), xenophobia have their very own section in the article. Here’s an excerpt;

Terms for prejudice
A number of terms with the suffix -phobia are used non-clinically. Such terms are primarily understood as negative attitudes towards certain categories of people or other things, used in an analogy with the medical usage of the term. Usually these kinds of “phobias” are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the “phobia”. Often this attitude is based on prejudices and is a particular case of most xenophobia.

So, perhaps the reason you’re looking for is “prejudice”?

In sum, I think your thread heavily implies that you see homosexuality as a fly in the ointment of human evolution, and genetic engineering serves as a viable, (and well-known) future-science method of ending the gay gene’s influence over humankind once and for all. I believe this is why you prefer to view homosexuality’s origin as being genetic despite other, equally-supported alternatives.

I admit, I have no idea whether homosexuality arises from genetic or hormonal factors. But, for this thread, I will suppose that it is indeed genetic.

…it is a genetic abnormality.

I agree that homosexuality would qualify as being an abnormality simply because it is a deviation from the norm. I don’t believe that there is anything inherently faulty about being gay.

Reproduction and the passing on of genes is a base instinct of all animals.

Reproduction and passing on genes is clearly NOT a basic instinct of all animals, since both humans and members of the animal kingdom have exhibited homosexual behaviours in the past and present.

Furthermore, procreation is not necessary to survival on an individual level. Not procreating will not negatively affect your lifespan. Under certain conditions not procreating can threaten a species as a collective, but as I say in my next paragraph a species would pretty much already have to be teetering on the brink for homosexuality/non-procreators/barren individuals to have a significant role in extinguishing it.

From a human-centred moral perspective, homosexuals have no more or less impact on the growth of our species’ population than a heterosexual who decides not to have children. And, if the 4% prevalence rate of homosexuality being thrown around is true, it would take some pretty dire global circumstances for reproduction to become a moral imperative to the point where the gay community is expected to pitch in on that front. And in fact, that may NEVER happen given the growing prevalence of artificial insemination. In modern day, through the power of technology, we can separate reproduction from individual sexual preferences. There’s no need to go tooling around with our DNA.

The question is, could this viewpoint be seen as offensive?

The thing I find offensive about your post, OP, is that you seem to be implying that you’re pro-homosexuality… Yet you present an impassioned case for homosexuality flying in the face of what it means, by your definition, to be human. I would call you a fair-weather supporter of the LGBT community; you’re tolerant of homosexuality until it can be excised from the gene pool.

I have illustrated why homosexuality does not impact one’s individual chances of survival, why it no longer needs to be tied to human reproduction, and ultimately, why it is not a disadvantage that needs to be pruned from our genetic make-up at the earliest opportunity. Given all that, the only reason I can see for a homosexual person voluntarily undergoing genetic engineering to remove it as a trait is because of the media and society at large condemning them for it. It would be far better for our species and our society if, rather than guilting gays into altering themselves to hetero expectations, we collectively exercised our oft-overlooked capacity for accepting people as they are.

It will one day be possible (though not necessarily morally right) to detect and prevent homosexuality before a person is born through genetic engineering.

I hope so hard that, if genetic engineering and designer babies do eventually become a common thing, the scientific community will have the wisdom to outlaw the alteration of “the homosexual gene” should it indeed exist. In my opinion, we should keep it to 1) traits that impair your life in ways beyond social judgement, such as illness and 2) purely aesthetic, limited traits such as hair colour, eye colour, etc. Altering racial appearance is a whole other argument… And watch Gataca if you want a breakdown of why altering innate human ability is a bad idea.

I’d say that the majority of gods, all pantheons and single deities I know of considered, have powers that will one day be replicable by human technology should it continue to develop on its present course.

The real stand-outs in terms of godlike abilities tend to be the “omni” powers often attributed to a single creator-god; omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence.

I’d say that, of these four options, omnipresence of a sort seems the most likely to be achievable by a sentient species such as ours. Should teleportation ever be possible through technological means, with no limits as to where you can “warp”, it could be said that a user of that technology at least has the potential to be present anywhere in the universe.

It would take a time machine to have a shot at true omnipresence; the ability to occupy every portion of our universe at once. Of course, if one had a time machine in the first place, one would have to question the wisdom of using it to pollute the entire universe with one’s duplicates for a single moment in time… Or for all time. I can’t imagine that either option would be very energy-efficient.

Omnibenevolence simply isn’t measurable. Is any sentient being capable of infallible “goodness”? Would scientists and moralists even be able to identify such a trait if faced with it? Morally ambiguous situations make omnibenevolence impossible for sentient non-deities. I’m sure I could come up with a better example if I thought about it long enough, but off the top of my head euthanasia comes to mind.

Omniscience is, again, incredibly difficult to measure. How would you know if you knew everything? I suppose you’d just know. You know?

…I’m sorry, that was lame. But, honestly, omniscience doesn’t allow for half-measures. Either you know it all, or you fall short of omniscience. I couldn’t even say that humankind is capable of one day knowing everything… Even if given an infinite amount of time. The universe is constantly expanding, generating incalculable amounts of new phenomena (or so I assume; does the expansion of the universe actually result in new matter?). And if all knowledge is considered, that means knowing every creature’s perspective on every subject they encounter. The boys in the lab will be working on this one for awhile, methinks. And if there’s an omniscient alien race out there we’re well and truly fucked… That is, unless they already know that we’d make poor slaves.

Omnipotence will simply never happen for any being besides God (allegedly). Rolled into omnipotence is the ability to make and unmake universes on a whim, to alter physical laws and what constitutes matter, and to skip school in order to drive around Chicago in a Ferrari while eluding your hardass principal AND still arriving home in time to fake sick before your parents pull into the driveway.

So, to tie all this nice and tight to the OP, a being who possesses these four attributes is more worthy of worship than any other being in the universe… For sure. Especially if it created our universe. Of course, that isn’t saying much if you believe that no being should really be worshipped under any circumstances… Or if you question, like I do, why such a being would seek the approval of a baby-race in the first place if they’re so great.

This post was largely to illustrate those few godlike abilities that, I believe, will forever transcend technology’s ability to reproduce them, and thus separates an all-powerful god from virtually any conception of alien race or future-dwelling human that one could dream up.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”-George Santayana

We all may remember that slavery occurred on a grand scale in the United States, but it’s continual circulation of the topic that will keep the memory alive for future generations. It serves as a reminder that the modern, progressive country you live in today once subjugated millions of Americans simply because the predominant race at the time perceived them as being sub-human.

Remembering that it happened in the US relatively recently, (from a historical standpoint) makes modern citizens more proactive in ensuring that it doesn’t happen again. Or, better yet, being inspired to combat slavery in other parts of the world.

I do agree with you jhco, I don’t think we should bring such things up. It is not good to do so. What’s past is past, focus on the present not the past and look to the future.

Cool. Can I ask you a few questions?

When should we not bring these things up? Ever? Should it not be taught in history class? Should we burn all the books that examine it in-depth? You seem to think, at the very least, discussing slavery in America should be discouraged on a forum intended for serious discussion. But no, you probably feel that the topic should be relegated to academia alone, along with any other pockmark on America’s history.

Does that go for the positive historical events as well? I mean, it’s the past right? What’s past is past after all. What value is there in learning about the Boston Tea Party or the signing of the Declaration of Independence? While we’re at it, let’s throw out the constitution and come up with a new one.

Finally, isn’t love all about accepting the object of your affections, warts and all? With that in mind, could it be said that one who prefers their nation’s more inconvenient, controversial actions to remain buried doesn’t truly love their country?

On another note, in many previous generations, it seems that nobody ever thought of “playing God” in a large sense. There was passion, large motivation, to progress, for science, to develop tools and technology. but it never really daunted on them the notion of playing God. But today, it seems, many of us feel alarmed by the rate of technology. Why do you guys think so?

You gave some examples that illustrate the reason for this in your last post.

For example
-Creating a new species of life that are innately designed to serve us in every way like a slave?
-Being able to manipulate babies into what you like them to be? For example, there exists a fee where you can customize your babies, to an extent. But in the future you may be able to create a digital model of your baby, and they will create an exact replica for you.

As a general rule, the expression “playing God” is applied to technologies that are capable of 1) sparing, 2) killing, or 3) irrevocably altering the lives of a large chunk of humankind. A fourth condition, the act of creating humans/animals/new sentient lifeforms through artificial means, practically ensures that the label can be applicable to a particular technology.

The two examples you give fulfil the third and fourth conditions. The fourth condition alone qualifies those examples for the label, but the third is tricky to pin down if it’s the only condition that applies to a given technology. Life-improving technologies like the wheel, for example, immeasurably benefited all humankind… But you’d hardly call a wheel’s abilities godlike. Other examples fall into a subjective grey area, like the internet. Could it be considered a grasp at omniscience? A clear third-condition-only technology that qualifies for the label in its common application is human augmentation through mechanical and genetic means, for one day innovations in this field may grant us capabilities in line with those of deities from several pantheons… And, perhaps one day, powers rivalling those exhibited by god in the Christian mythos.

To round this post out with examples of the remaining two conditions, I’d say any technology that can revive those who are clinically dead could fulfil the first condition and qualify as “playing God”. As for the second, look no further than the atom bomb.

I’d say a technology’s ability to be judged as an example of “playing god” relates to which of the four conditions it fulfils, and to what extent it fulfils them. As a rule of thumb, I’d say the tipping point lies in how they match up with the abilities god exhibits in scripture. God casts plagues over Egypt… We wage chemical and biological warfare on a massive scale. Jesus is resurrected… We are, to an extent, capable of resurrection through medical science. Most examples, like this last, will approach the extent of such powers rather than matching them, though an argument could still be made for them being an example of “playing god”.

In closing, these days our technological advances tend to be both less directly tied to our survival and convenience, and more far-reaching in their impact on humanity. So, we have the luxury of fiddling with our DNA and getting to work on child species of our very own at a time when a huge portion of the civilized world can access information about such research and panic over its implications. When it comes to research like that, more exposure means a wider audience of those who don’t understand the science and/or find that it conflicts with their worldview. This naturally leads to more panic, and a greater atmosphere of worry in regards to technological advances. And I’d say that, in a nutshell, is why we hear the expression “playing god” with greater frequency in modern day.

Of course, as I said on the first page of this thread, I still find it weird when a monotheistic religious person uses the expression.

I’m by no means an expert on christian mythos; in fact, I have never read any portion of the bible. My knowledge of the religion is based on a combination of data derived from a children’s bible I read as a kid, (for the pictures) Jesus Christ Superstar, and some other sources I’m forgetting/neglecting to mention because their religious content is either warped, incidental, or otherwise unreliable, (I’m looking at you, Life of Brian).

That said, I remember hearing something about why Lucifer doesn’t qualify for redemption. I don’t remember where, and it probably wasn’t from the most legitimate of sources, but it goes like this:

The way I understand it, Lucifer’s rebellion against god represented the first and most grievous example of pride, the worst of all sins. But what made it unforgivable was that Lucifer attempted to overthrow god himself. In the context of christian doctrine that’s a terrible thing; thinking that you can do better than the creator, and rallying his own creations against him to take his power as your own. If I were god, I’d be pissed; probably for eternity.

But, from my perspective as an agnostic, I think there are elements of Lucifer’s rebellion that sound… Well, romantic. I’ve always found the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful god to which I must swear loyalty to be kind of… Oppressive. The thought of an angel turning on such a creator in a bid to dethrone him, therefore, could actually be kind of valiant depending on that angel’s motivations. If he was fighting for the liberty of god’s creations, for example, he could even be considered not evil.

Maybe god is pettier than he made himself out to be in his interactions with humans, and simply damned and waged a smear campaign against a well-meaning freedom fighter? Typing that is probably really heretical, for which I apologise in advance to any offended religious folks. You could say I’m just playing devil’s advocate. :D

In the end, everything I’ve presented is purely theoretical from my perspective. I put no more stock in christianity than any other religion, or the concept that they’re all necessarily false. But, despite my lack of actual data and strong feelings on the subject, I felt the need to discuss it. Have no fear if you’re christian and offended by my statements, because according to your worldview I’m definitely going to hell for this post anyway, so I’ll get mine, right?

It’s just that people who yoke in the oppressive white man are just as bad as those who yoke in the “nigger” or “beaner” as the concept of a black or Mexican person. I mean, I know there are hard working black people out there, and they hate the hood rat just as much as white people do. The central thing is, those are issues of attitude that prevent progress, not any birthright, contrary to their claims.

Right, they’re issues of perception; generalizing when one may do better to accept someone on their own merits. It’s a shorthand, one that most everyone is guilty of at one time or another, and despite the fact that it’s often illogical and outright morally wrong it’s still an essential part of how humans relate to one another.

Whether any of the labels you, or anyone assigns to a particular race or creed are tangible is moot. The simple fact is that every human is born into a set of circumstances beyond their control, and because of those circumstances they will be perceived in a certain way – sometimes in line with how they’d like to be perceived as a result of their words and actions, and sometimes not. The latter are, of course, the obstacles I spoke of in my last post.

Do they though? From what I’ve seen there are no inherit disadvantages based on race. MAYBE ethnicity can be if you aren’t able to keep your religious and social beliefs from being distracting in the workplace (i.e. not ringing up someone’s groceries because you can’t touch pork).

These disadvantages do exist. Though you refer to “nigger” and “beaner” as inaccurate stereotypes, as well you should, there are others who use these labels as a lens through which to view an entire race of people. Whether they’re private or public about these views, it has an effect on society; it can be as simple as a privately anti-semitic employer denying a jewish man a job.

So I should be glad people hate me for who I am?

No, but you should acknowledge that it’s impossible to avoid, and that you’re in the best possible social position for minimizing harm to your psyche and your prospects as a result of other people’s judgements.

Also, we’re regularily hated and ridiculed in normal society for the same reasons.

Everybody is. But when it comes to white heterosexual males, it tends to be about envying the advantages such a person is born into. While it’s not pleasant to be discriminated against for this reason, it’s among the least harmful stereotypes you could have attributed to you.

It’s far better than being automatically considered lazy, stupid, criminal, parasitic, strange, poor, inhuman, etc. with no consideration for your own merits, and to this day people struggle to overcome such labels, least of all white male heterosexuals.

EDIT: Just FYI to those who responded seriously to the OP, TC is attempting to troll you into taking his post as a legit foundation for debate.

In reality, every word TC typed originated from the soundfiles of the philosophically-charged video game Bioshock. It’s a speech delivered by the game’s main antagonist, Andrew Ryan, who is the tyrant of an underwater city founded on objectivist ideals.

Your existence isn’t oppressive, but your advantages can remind others of the obstacles in their life that prevent them from sharing them.

And, as upset as you may be that people resent you for things you can’t change about yourself, minorities in the same position have it far worse. Be thankful that you’re envied when others are regularly pitied, hated, or ridiculed for their race and/or sexual orientation.

In my eyes, a believer citing some technological advance as an example of “playing god” is to discredit the very deity they reference.

Because your opinion is idiotic.

Your opinion is idiotic because it gives us one of two options: either god’s an idiot and hasn’t figured out cybernetics, or god’s an idiot and we have to tell him what’s what. either way the opinion, which is apparently supposed to be all about respecting god, is all about how he’s a fucking moron. No kidding, sherlock.

It wasn’t my intention to imply that god is a moron, that cybernetics is beyond his capabilities, or that we have to tell him what’s what.

In fact, I was trying to express the opposite; that the most uniquely godlike traits are likely forever unattainable by us, that anything we could accomplish today as a species is well within his capabilities, and that, in the case of an omnipotent+omniscient+all-creating god such as the one I usually hear attached to this expression, everything we’ve done is supposed to be part of his “plan” anyway.

At the tail end of my post I present what I believe to be the core of the expression; that, really, it’s just something people say when they feel your scientific advance is giving you or humanity too much power, and potentially threatening the species or the status quo in a grand fashion. In this case, “god” is incidental; a way of expressing that we as a species are overstepping our bounds. However, when spoken by a believer, I feel it naturally makes light of their own god’s capabilities by suggesting we are “playing at” them by doing such.

I apologise if any of this is obvious to you; I was posting in the hopes that it might not be that way for everyone.

In my eyes, a believer citing some technological advance as an example of “playing god” is to discredit the very deity they reference.

Science and technology simply work to improve what we already have. Whether we’re improving our minds and bodies, teasing at the fringes of AI, or cloning new humans, we are doing nothing more or less than what we’ve always done; explore the possibilities of our environment.

The one, untouchable facet of a god, (or, at least, an “all-creator” like the christian God, which is usually what the expression refers to in my experience) is the act of creating something from nothing. A universe from a void. This isn’t something that can be “played at”, obviously; should humans ever be capable of such a thing, we would truly be gods ourselves.

Anything less than that isn’t remotely divine. It’s scientific progress; a direct extension of our ancestors harnessing fire to warm themselves. Scientific advances that have far-reaching moral implications, or the potential to harm humanity on a grand scale are equal to more archaic and/or mundane varieties of research in terms of their “godlike” status.

So, to identify any scientific endeavour as “playing at being god” is to view it through a fractured lens. A more accurate statement may be that such endeavours are an example of “working at being human”.

“Playing god” is simply an overly dramatic, inaccurate shorthand for expressing a more complicated concept; the possibility of changing the course of humanity’s progression in a profound, irreversible way through science and technology.

I have asked out girls who are my friends several times in my life, and have been rejected every time.

But you know what? I don’t regret it. Rejection stings at first, but when it’s over you’ll feel the spiritual wholeness that comes with knowing you had the courage to pursue what is important to you, even if it didn’t pan out.

as per your typical logic. it is, therefor it’s right. i am questioning the common attitude towards internet anonymity and privacy. you are trying to counter my argument simply by stating the situation i am questioning.you tell me how that is a valid argument.

You’re saying Youtube is adding twenty second ads to videos and Jews run some English-language websites, so all of our information will be harvested and we’ll be made into corporate/government slaves or whatever crazy scenario you envision for the future of our current society and internet.

THAT isn’t a valid argument; not even close. And I’m not telling you your view is wrong; I’m telling you it will be rejected by the vast majority of internet users. You’re free to disagree with that, but you’ll never learn it yourself anyway because I highly doubt you’ll ever take any steps to see it through. You’re free, of course, to bitch and complain on forums about it, but by the same token I’ll try my best to help you accept reality and understand why your position won’t be widely accepted anytime soon.

yes i did. you just didn’t quote the questionmark at the end of the sentence.

My mistake, I thought I got the whole sentence. I will now answer the question.

Nobody gives a shit. It’s 20 seconds of their life. Revolutions require MUCH more of a basis than that, which is exactly what you’d need to sway public opinion and change the economic state of the US as you propose.

i can’t believe you still believe that shit.

That people will more often than not try to make money with their intellectual property in a capitalist society? I feel pretty good about that one, actually.

i recognise Youtube is based on video-streams, which perhaps is more server intensive, but non-the-less.

It’s probably the most central factor in why there aren’t more free, high-quality video streaming sites on the internet. The monthly fees required to keep such a site running are no joke.

and there really should be a community-run video-stream-sharing website.

I want that too. I want most of the excellent internet developments you’ve proposed… I just don’t think it’s feasible that they’ll manifest in reality, (at least, not on a large scale) given the general public’s current acceptance of a highly commercial internet. You can possibly change that, and I invite you to try.

secondly, Youtube has no viable competitor. which is because of it’s community/public-based origin, that they sold out on. no competition means no need to have a good product, which almost inevitably leads to crappy quality and shady business.

Other, less-obtrusive video-streaming sites exist, but I continue to use Youtube for several reasons. Google can afford to pay for lots of bandwidth, the site runs incredibly smoothly and is laid out better than anything I’ve found, and Youtube was one of the first; this means it has MUCH more content than its competitors, and probably always will, (unless, of course, Youtube disbands) since it`s always generating more and started with more to begin with.

Commercialism isn`t all bad. Sure, you get ads and siphoning of your information, but quality of service will generally be far beyond anything you`d find on a less commercial site. The continued popularity of Youtube suggests that most users consider this a suitable exchange.

just because they need to make money, doesn’t justify any way they seek to make money. they’re doing something quite bad and dangerous, that i really don’t like, and saying they “need it” to make money is a patent lie obviously they don’t “need” it, and justifying it by saying “that’s how they make money” is also ridiculous.

I would never justify how corporations make their money, unless it`s something indisputably good like Girl Guides making cash off their cookies.

They certainly don’t “need” to siphon information to make money either. But that IS how they currently make money. That’s just a fact. I don’t want to justify it, and I’m not trying to counter your arguments with it. I’m telling you that their business philosophy is a certain way right now, and SOMEONE is going to have to do an ass-load of work to change their minds. I would personally suggest forming some kind of coalition.

cigarettes were ones sold without any warning and people didn’t realise the hazards. any criticism of that could also be “countered” with the exact same non-arguments you are using: “they need to make money; they’re not saints; you try to run a business” blabla bullshit cop outs.

Different situation. Advances in medical science confirmed that smoking is bad for you, and the enhancement of technology allowed awareness on this subject to be spread more easily.

If you can show me proof that a commercial internet will necessarily lead to whatever doomsday scenario you’re thinking of, like how the inhalation of toxic smoke will necessarily destroy your lungs, I will sign on as a member of your glorious rebellion right now.

so? so therefor i shouldn’t complain about it? what’s your point? again you just keep justifying things by saying that’s how things are. where do people come up with arguments like that?

I’ve told you in this post and the one before it that you’re free to spout as much of your opinion as you wish. And again, the fact that lots of people clearly disagree with it and you have no actual proof to back your conclusion doesn’t make it inherently wrong; it just gives it a very slim chance of actually having an impact in reality.

Implying the the Jews have some sort of elite monopoly on corporatizing various websites. There’s no GOOD way to do that; it just makes you look fringe and damages your credibility.

not nobody else. this is also circular logic.

Intentional hyperbole. Also, my conclusion with this paragraph is that your view is unpopular, and my evidence is that the majority of internet users clearly do not share your perspective, judging by the relative absence of wingnut threads like this one. How is that circular logic?

hence the problem. why do you insist on justifying things being the way they are by saying that’s the way they are?

I’m not justifying anything. I’m telling you the way things are because you don’t seem to know.

case in point.

…Of people creating some great intellectual property and selling it for lots of money, as such people usually do. I wish people made great things for free and kept them free and devoid of ads for every user everywhere, but that’s just not the way things go. Is your platform that people should be nicer and more charitable when creating content on the internet? Great; just remove our innate tendency toward greed and providing for ourselves and you’ll have one hell of a concept.

that doesn’t answer the question, does it?

You didn’t ask a question.

and yet, Youtube did not start out with a fat wallet, for a long time did not or hardly sell adspace, until they chose for the quick money and sold it to corps. the reason Youtube can’t survive on donations is because it sucks. again, you are justifying the suckiness of something by saying it sucks.

It didn’t suck before, and it couldn’t survive on handouts then either; hence why it sold out to Google.

I can’t believe I actually have to tell you that most people don’t have the time, interest, or moral fibre to offer great things for free on the internet. If you want a better internet, you’re going to need better people, and corporations who are less ambitious in the ways they get customer information… And it would help if they didn’t give independent website owners so much fucking money for their intellectual property, too.

for now…

The internet has had time to grow and develop, and we have seen it become progressively more commercial over the years. Everything points to this trend continuing. I can’t prove you wrong; you’re entitled to your opinion of what you think the internet should be. I’m simply telling you that what you want is extremely unrealistic given the circumstances.

I’d say that anyone can engage in trolling, but not everyone who trolls is a troll.

The act of trolling, if we limit it to its internet manifestation, is interacting in a way that 1. is intended to derive a negative emotional response from readers and/or undermine the rules or philosophy of the site/service on which the trolling is displayed and 2. takes advantage of internet anonymity by portraying one’s self or one’s beliefs in a way that is not consistent with one’s actual identity or views.

A troll is someone who engages in trolling most of the time when interacting with others on the internet. The degree of “trolling” behaviour required to earn this label is highly subjective, and the more the person in question interacts sincerely and uses the site/service as intended, the less of a basis there is for labelling them a troll.

I believe that it’s important to make a distinction between trolling and just being butthurt.

People who are butthurt will occasionally fulfil condition 1. of trolling behaviour by becoming frustrated when their legitimate online identities or views are challenged, and react in a way that derives negative responses and/or violates the rules/philosophy of the site/service. However, since they have a legitimate attachment to their views and online identity, they’re really just being an ass, and are not trolling.

Condition 2. of trolling by itself is most often engaged in by roleplayers. Roleplayers portray themselves differently online intentionally, but for the purposes of indulging in cooperative fiction-based entertainment. Other internet users portray themselves differently online for positive responses or maintaining an e-social life.

Some users, like myself, freely alternate between regular online behaviours and trolling, varying these behaviours based on the demeanour of the individual they’re interacting with. Simply put, I’m mean and disingenuous when speaking with idiots online.

right. that’s how we used to think about it. we don’t anymore. within 10 years we changed all the way. for what reason?

Because alarmism is the earliest and most natural human response to new technology, and the closer we get to that technology being reality, the less sense the alarmist POV tends to make. Makes for a ripping good read, though.

hence the problem

That’s just it; I’m telling you that nobody else considers it a problem. Are they all stupid, and you’re the only one who knows that our information being siphoned by corporations will lead to the downfall of society as we know it?

hence the problem. also, Wikipedia didn’t.

Wikipedia makes a point of avoiding corporate interests; unlike most other sites out there, Wikipedia’s creators have a goal of enshrining all human knowledge so that anyone can access it. This is an incredibly rare choice, by far the exception to the rule, and the ONLY reason it’s occurring at all is because it’s primarily a knowledge resource rather than an entertainment resource.

There’s also the fact that its goal is so noble that the site can be sustained, at least in part, by user donations. Few other sites would command that sort of good will from its users.

it was built up by the community, now they exploit that. it’s clearly not necessary because it did fine without

Youtube was built up by the original owners and the community, and was eventually sold to Google who began using it as the cash cow that it was always destined to be.

it’s clearly detrimental to society that we now have to wait 20 seconds every little video we open

Well, shit. Time to march on Washington.

i don’t know how to do any of that. but it should be possible, Youtube 5 years ago and Wikipedia today proves it.

Wikipedia is a unique animal, and the good cause it serves attracts all sorts of donations. I guarantee a site like Youtube will not be able to sustain itself on donations alone; starting with a fat wallet, selling adspace, and selling out to corporations entirely are virtually the only ways of an entertainment site’s survival being assured on the internet.

that is completely defeatist. it’s the way it is and therefor it’s the way it should be, and we shouldn’t try to change anything about it, because it will never change, because we won’t try to change it. imagine everyone in history said that…

What I’m telling you is that nobody wants to change it. You’re vastly outnumbered by people who understand that their personal information is an insignificant price to pay for the excellent resources that the internet has to offer. Historically, revolutions happen when many band together under a single cause; I don’t see your cause attracting anywhere near that sort of publicity or acceptance.

If you didn’t care about Jewish involvement in these “evil” info-harvesting websites, you wouldn’t be mentioning Jews every second post.

I really don’t understand why you’re getting so riled up about this. If the police, firemen, and employees of my local grocery store came over to my house and wanted my information I’d throw it all at their feet. Why?

I don’t care. Few people do nowadays. If I DID care, I’d put in like an hour of research and figure out how to protect my information.

The gradual loss of personal information or “identity” is a by-product of technological change that has been in the mind’s eye of the general public for some time. Usually it’s presented as an extreme dystopian development – the Borg of Star Trek, for example, or Orwell’s 1984.

The fact is that it’s a necessary change. We, as North Americans, are simply adapting ourselves to our newest and most communication-friendly medium to date; the internet. For every person who keeps to themselves and likes their anonymity, there are ten that post every fucking thing about their lives on the internet, including the food they eat and the places they go every day.

Youtube becoming more corporate all the time is another one of those unavoidable facts of internet usage. Every medium starts a little less organized, and a little less corporate, until corporations realize the optimal way of making money from the service. In TV’s case you got ad placements every few minutes; on the internet you get pop-ups that can be done away with in a second, but bits of your information are siphoned if you haven’t taken measures to protect it.

If you disagree with the internet functioning this way, go ahead and start up a Youtube equivalent without selling adspace or accepting a multi-million dollar buyout when big business comes calling to gain control of your site. I’m guessing you wouldn’t stick to either practise for long.

At the end of the day, the internet doesn’t survive on good will and the user’s comfort alone. The flow of dollars and personal information is what keeps it alive; begrudging it that fact is nothing but an exercise in futility. You could be using that effort to plug the leak on your personal information instead of basing conspiracies around corporate practises that no one can change.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »